Of the myriad policy crises churning on the horizon -- entitlement insolvency, illegal immigration and runaway federal spending among them -- congressional Republicans chose to spend the little political capital they have left on an Internet gambling ban.

With brick-and-mortar casinos in nearly every state and card games breaking into network television, millions of moralists found it unbearable that Americans were wagering about $6 billion per year on the Web. That their neighbors might be playing poker or placing sports bets from the comfort of their desk chairs demanded federal intervention. "Ban it!" they cried. "Misguided citizens will lose their homes! Their children will starve! Families will be destroyed!"

Never mind the folly of legislating leisure. (That Prohibition thing was a rousing success, wasn't it? And certainly, no sports wagering takes place outside of Nevada.) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was determined to please his base with a new law before November's election, no matter how flawed or misguided it might be.

The cause was so preposterous it couldn't win passage as a stand-alone bill. Sen. Frist first tried to attach the Internet gambling ban to a defense appropriations bill. No luck. So he slipped it into port security legislation that passed the House and Senate early Saturday. A Bush administration official indicated the president plans to sign the bill into law.

And so no children will be forced into homelessness, their parents now prohibited from using personal checks, credit cards or electronic fund transfers to pay off Internet bets placed with online casinos and sports books. The costly, irresistible temptation of playing games of chance on personal computers has been eradicated. Right?

Wrong. Not only did Sen. Frist have to lard up the ports bill to win passage for his pet project, he included enough exemptions to rival the IRS tax code.

The bill permits Web-based betting on horse racing and for state lotteries. It also allows state-licensed casinos, once authorized within their jurisdiction, to construct Web sites with online poker and casino-style gaming. And these casinos would be allowed to provide links to other states and countries where gambling is legal.

So rather than deliver a "ban," Sen. Frist merely cut off the American market from online gambling sites based in Britain and the Caribbean. Like most heavy-handed regulations, this "ban" is really just thinly veiled protectionism.

"In order to get this bill passed, they (Republicans) sold their souls. They gave so many exceptions that it's now a wide-open area," attorney Tony Cabot, editor of the Internet Gambling Report and co-editor of the Gaming Law Review, told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

This Internet gambling "ban" is nothing close to a ban at all -- and that's a good thing. It's foolish to think the Internet gambling genie can be stuffed back into its bottle. Technology is driving the evolution of the gaming industry, so it makes perfect sense that regulated American companies should be allowed to conduct business with their millions of customers through the World Wide Web.

The bill could bring some short-term pain to MGM Mirage and Harrah's Entertainment, which use Internet poker sites to place some entrants in their own poker tournaments. But they'll figure out how to rebuild their qualification networks. The opportunities now available to Nevada gaming companies are staggering in their scope.

"The casino lobbyists in Washington, D.C., thought this was a pretty good deal. It's actually better than that," Mr. Cabot said. "It really opens up the field. It knocks out the offshore companies, and leaves the legal licensees open to take their positions."

It remains to be seen, however, whether the American conservatives who demanded this legislation will think it's a good deal. More likely, they'll realize sometime soon that they've been taken by a sucker bet.

Of the myriad policy crises churning on the horizon -- entitlement insolvency, illegal immigration and runaway federal spending among them -- congressional Republicans chose to spend the little political capital they have left on an Internet gambling ban. ----- After this election is over, and everyone had better pray the libs do not get control in Washington, I will be dumping the Repubs. They are USELESS WIMPS who do not fight and represent the weakest politics in Washington -- yeah, we must spend time on internet poker while our country continues to suffer the ravages of runaway spending and illegal immigration all hosted by a complacent, vote-mongering Congress that is totally useless to America --- it only serves itself.

Don't be daft. This had nothing to do with the religious right. This wasn't even on the radar scope of most social conservatives. This was the casino lobby masking a move as that of the religious conservatives.

The "religious right" are wondering what they have to show for the past five years at all.

I guess it is pandering. But without the faithful I think Republicans are going to have a rude awakening on November 8. I count myself among the Christian right but I also am not arrogant enough to use the federal government to dictate what others do. There are a whole group of people who exist to do that: They are called democrats.

Frist, Kyle , Leach and Goodlatte all used "morals" and "family values"(forthechildrenandgod) to push more government control over banking and the internet. Read their statements. If you can't find them I will post them here for you.

8
posted on 10/13/2006 5:13:35 PM PDT
by KDD
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)

I don't know whose idea this was, but it sucks anyway. Nonetheless, with the exceptions put in, it shouldn't be long until the Nevada casinos partner up with California Indian casinos to bring us internet gambling for things like hold 'em to a new level!

9
posted on 10/13/2006 5:13:40 PM PDT
by Enterprise
(Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)

I guess it is pandering. But without the faithful I think Republicans are going to have a rude awakening on November 8.

If they alienate the other 3/4 of the party who do not care for false piety in politicians or government enforced morality of actions that are private in nature then the GOP could be gazing on an electoral landscape as bleak as that which existed for the GOP in the years following Watergate.

12
posted on 10/13/2006 5:19:27 PM PDT
by KDD
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)

Everyone knows land based casinos in America are losing money to the popular online casinos so they got the Frist legislation passed to ban online gambling in the US.

This "fact" couldn't be more wrong.

Nevada casinos have been on an overall growth curve for years and July '06 saw revenues up sharply in a typically slow month. Nevada casinos do not support banning online gaming legislation and should be given credit for successfully lobbying the Leach anti-Internet gambling bill into an early death.

24
posted on 10/13/2006 5:42:26 PM PDT
by KDD
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)

Using the State to stifle Choice in matters of adults and their relationship with vice destroys the very concept of morality...

Albert J. Nock argues in his essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," that the moral development of the individual is stunted every time the State extends its activity into new areas because the area available for the unhindered and free exercise of the human moral faculties is thus reduced.

In fact, he argues, in moral philosophy there is a fundamental assumption that individuals are responsible for their actions. It makes no sense to say that an individual should or should not do something on moral grounds (e.g. place a bet on a football game) if that individual cannot freely choose between different courses of action (if betting is illegal). Nock argues that literally there can be no such thing as morality unless one has the freedom to choose between alternatives, without external sources of coercion.

37
posted on 10/13/2006 6:14:12 PM PDT
by KDD
(A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)

Ah, no. Governments are to be respected partly because, as a by-product of keeping society intact, they curtail the ability of the dredges to do evil.

If God wanted governments to fully enforce every moral 'code,' then the government would have the responsibility of overseeing Christian evangelizing - an idea not found in the Bible, at least not to my knowledge.

Casinos are a business built and dependent on odds DESIGNED to take your money from you. TO MAKE YOU A LOSER.

Yes. In every single game but one. Poker. There is no house edge in poker. For you do not play against the house. You play against the other players. The house makes its money with the rake in cash games and with a small fee attached to the tournament buy in for tournaments.

46
posted on 10/13/2006 6:48:22 PM PDT
by Phantom Lord
(Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)

If God wanted governments to fully enforce every moral 'code,' then the government would have the responsibility of overseeing Christian evangelizing - an idea not found in the Bible, at least not to my knowledge.

Nonsense.

Guess you think that unless the govt makes every person become a born again Christian it should not have the authority to enforce moral laws against murder, stealing etc?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.